This becomes irresponsibility, this relentless notion of “progressives” that life can be perfectly equitable and fair if only the central (Federal) government was to recognize that whatsoever your every need, you’re entitled to having it met. Everyone’s entitled to everything, and we can allow every person on the planet to move into America (documented or otherwise), we can provide healthcare to each of them, et al, if only the meanies in the GOP (and other mean-spirited non-progressives) would kindly get out of the way…after forking over however much the patron saints (AKA “progressives”) of ‘MeriKa deem fair.
Just so everyone knows, the Founding Fathers were apparently wrong. When they each indicated their support for the Declaration of Independence, they said “…the pursuit of happiness.” What they really should’ve said was “…the guarantee of happiness.”
Envision an America where everyone in the world may come here for free, be educated for free, receive healthcare for free, receive protection for free and where only the people with the audacity to be financially successful would pay taxes. Everyone we don’t like, in other words, those with the nerve to flourish in their personal pursuit of happiness and make big money? They are to be punished for that shameful deed with a massive take hike to pay for everyone else’s apparent lack of financial gains.
“In a country as wealthy as America, there’s no excuse for anyone to live in poverty, and there’s especially no justification for anyone working full-time to make less than a ‘living’ [read as “above the poverty line].” While, yes, both of the previous sentences are me paraphrasing Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), each is the expression of an undoubtedly genuine statesman in his quest for fairness in social economics.
If you so desire, there are segments of the Independent Senator from Vermont you may hear as far back as 1991 (at least, but I didn’t persist past that) very much like his platform and supporting statements on the campaign trail last year. Granted, being a largely laissez-faire economic thinker myself (leaving room for a limited social safety net and a very limited Environmental Protection Agency), in saying I take Senator Sanders for being sincere, I believe him ultimately to be sincerely mistaken.
Notwithstanding, as I pivot into why (with all due respect a man in his position of his apparent character) I feel his type of thinking is inherently wrong and fiscally unsustainable, here in this article and in articles and podcasts future, I cannot do so without pointing out that, again, one can seek and find his speeches over twenty years old of him spouting the same neo-socialist dogma he was heard spewing last year on the stump in the “fight” for a nomination that never was in play. My point? Find another politician, on any level (Federal, State or local), that maintains a nearly-unaltered platform for twenty consecutive months, let alone twenty-plus years.
Like a botched fiscal article from CBS I’ll hit in a bit, there’s more than one fatuous error to be sifted for here, but the two most glaring (meriting extensive coverage in greater detail as we expand our economic postings) are: 1) the assumption that tax receipts will not vary as wildly as they have as recently as “The Great Recession”, as though their won’t be an increase in offshore tax burrowing once they start trying to execute enough of the rich to feel better about owning four homes themselves; this, among other unrealistic “the ball will always bounce our way!” bets that his “it pays for itself” social spending programs rely heavily upon and 2) the idea that is critical to his house of cards remaining intact is the non sequitur (Latin: “it does not follow) tenet that by punishing those who have wealth, by punishing those who’ve been financially successful (even if it means by taxing what they’ve already been taxed on after their death by way of their heirs), by making those top money-grubbing meanies pay their “fair share” so A plus B may equal C (but only in Bernie’s variant of La La Land), by punishing the successful, indeed, we’ll someone make everyone else successful.
This is nonsense. It does not follow that if one hamstrung the winners one can automatically create more winners.
Put another way, imagine blurting out in a company meeting that all sales reps who surpassed quota and earned bonuses were about to be stripped of at least 40-50% of the fruits of their labor. Why? So that other reps who didn’t meet quota, or just met quota but, for any number of reasons ultimately were not proficient (if they even tried or showed up for work at all) can benefit from free bonuses paid for by (time is money and they didn’t put the effort in) those who clearly “got it” and did well.
Before moving swiftly along (to return in near-future writings and podcasts, I assure you; I’m an econ guy, recall), I want to make clear that the latter portion of my critique of Senator Sanders’ idyllic (and fantastical) “plans” is intended to serve as a pre-op, of sorts, to a long-term, surgical dissection of statist (BIG OLE GOVERNMENT) fiscal notions and logical bankruptcy. It is not intended nor will it ever be wielded (unless someone twists and uses my words for ill) to imply that children, the elderly, the disabled, expectant mothers and any number of extenuating scenarios are being mistaken for slothfulness or bumbling idiocy. Again, this was a logical critique, particularly on the second point, and not a social critique of the less-fortunate.
With that, the rubber meets the road when we get off semantics and examine such policy proposals along lines parallel to those squiggled by the good Senator from “Ben & Jerry’s” country. I know, I know, much fuss was generated when news broke about how his “everybody gets community college for free” and “everybody gets healthcare for free” plans are paid for/pay for themselves. These stories indeed broke and caused several epic “hate-in’s” at DeViney family gatherings, and now, out of reach and safe from being shouted down (I kept my mouth shut each time these incidents occurred) by a member of my kin, I maintain that “broke” is quite the appropriate word.
The truth of the matter is that only a madman or a naïve socialist on the brink of senility would argue that either “get this sh*t for free!” bureaucratic expansion proposed by Senator Sanders is a good idea when portrayed in proper fiscal context (rather than “but but but…that’s not fair!” heartstring tugs).
Yes, yes, I can almost hear the bellowing of “For instance?!” all the way from here. Ever heard of Social Security? If not, and you’re under the age of 50, while we should never stop learning, I’m nearly inclined to say, “If so, don’t worry about it because, yeah, you’re gonna keep paying in but you will never, barring a series of miracles, ever receive even half of what you pay in.”
This might upset you or even cause one to cite articles like this that smooths over such ominous foreboding by naysayers like yours truly, who could be pointed at and sneered at as a swashbuckling stereotype (white, Christian, non-leftist Southern male) who is still trying to wrap up his education in economics and (being the stereotype cited) someone who shouldn’t be at the table anyway. Conversely, my five years of enlisted service in the U.S. Navy isn’t something I reference a lot and is hardly something I feel entitles me to this, that or the other (again, I enlisted; I wasn’t drafted). But in the oath all personnel take (very similar to the POTUS’ Oath of Office) we vow, even at the expense of our lives, to defend this nation against all enemies, “both foreign and domestic.”
“What in God’s Holy name are you blathering about?!” New sh*t came to light, and as I’ve referenced on the podcast with fellow ModState-r (and fellow veteran, a U.S. Army officer/ICU nurse I served with in Bethesda, circa. 2011-2013) ad nauseam, with the repeal of the Propaganda Act, AKA the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, I don’t know what to think regarding the author (Steve Vernon) and his (presently) ambiguous motives here. This is either a classic case of being uneducated on the subject at hand (“ignorant”, one could say, since I’m a meanie) or is the precise sort of editorial diarrhea that calms everybody down because, $20 trillion national debt and annual deficits of the past decade that have been as high as $1 trillion aside, there’s nothing to see here and certainly nothing to worry about regarding Social Security. The good times will continue to roll and that vile, business-owning and people-hiring top 1% can just pay for it all and e’rr’body else here with you and I amongst the serfs? Yeah, loudmouthed meanies out here amidst the Proletariat, meanies like me? We need to just be quiet and allow what amounts to a brazen attempt at deception to roll on unscathed.
The author of that Mickey Mouse analysis vomited, shorthand, “Well if things go on like they have for America even in the bad times, the law says we have to receive our benefits. So, if the IRS is still alive and you are still alive then you’ll be receiving your benefits,” miring the piece in the ether of semantics. Hopelessly bogged down due to terminology (flashing some apparent education on the issue; “lemme tell you there’s a difference in Social Security and the Social Security Trust Fund, mmmkay?!”), he is technically correct here but the idea that there’s no risk in revenues changing like they did (and drastically, at times) during the Great Recession? That’s the easy “First of all” here, and second but utmost, to go on spreading said vomit around as if there’s not an ongoing trend of “borrowing” from these funds and/or manipulating their accounting fabric? Very similar to what the Bush Administration did with the Pentagon’s purse-power, the end result here is clear either way.
Whomever this ne’er-do-well’s editor or supervisor or soothsaying mentor is, that they had the temerity to post this journalistic defecation and pass it off on a public living unawares as seamless and truthful is a vile happening.
To put why I’m so angry and disgusted with this performance (or lack thereof) is, again, in light of the aforementioned repeal of the Propaganda Act(s) of 1948, I hearken back to cases like that of Enron where we sent men to The Big House (and I don’t mean a Wolverines game) for crimes not unlike raping the retirement and related benefits of their corporate employees and therefore not dissimilar whatsoever from what the United States Congress has done with the taxes rendered in good faith by the citizens of this nation. Are the two scenarios identical? No, so spare me the angry remarks informing me that, “um, like, the Federal Government and like, Enron, a corporation, aren’t the same thing, like, y’know?”
What is pertinent here is that I dug farther into trifles like $20 trillion debts while Sanders and his fellows and followers (AKA “Bernie & The Jests”) unwillingly demonstrate (to myself as much as anyone not espousing the virtues of Big Brother) just how much work there is to be done. ModState is making incredible strides and marking its hard-earned, burgeoning in-roads on Capitol Hill and down K Street with an expanding focus on fiscal policy and macroeconomics, but there’s a lot more to talk about, write about and press lawmakers about. Indeed, I’ve realized of late, more so than even those depraved enough to join us here want to admit.
I have nothing personally against CBS or the author of the referenced piece, and I don’t pretend to have a monopoly on economic insight or fiscal policy provisions, much less corporate fraud. What I do have an axe to grind with both the Federal Government and the Mainstream Media over is, deliberate or not, such nonchalant, business-as-usual coverage of such grave matters is deceitful (if intentional) but irresponsible in living up to the unwritten contract betwixt the Fourth Estate (i.e., the media) and American public.
After beating the drum so thoroughly about how catastrophic our lives became since the turn of the millennium due (in large part) to Albert Gore (the savior of polar ice) not becoming POTUS instead of Dubya, one would think the media would view things not being business-as-usual as a “Well, duh!” statement. Just a little more down that long and winding road came their bleating on as a chorus of fools about “Hope” (which does not constitute a plan) and “Change” (see: “Animal Farm” by Orwell, George), devoid of the obvious signs pointing to POTUS Obama being thicker today with the Wall Street 1% and Company than he was as POTUS (and he was indeed thick as, well, thieves with those wealthy meanies). During that time, we saw the aforementioned Smith-Mundt Act repealed convincingly with the auspices of the signature of POTUS Obama, a Constitutional lawyer. The sentiment from both ruling parties was/is (see: Senator Kennedy, John [R-LA]) it allows for greater foreign disinformation and counterintelligence planning and subsequent campaigns of deception being in the interest of our national foreign policy, however destructive.
At what cost? Things like I’ve been going on about here, much to the chagrin of Aunt Sam and the Nanny State brothel(s) housed in the Beltway. I don’t know about y’all (yep, Y’ALL), but the unadvertised two-way street here, courtesy of such a lovely gathering rife with trial lawyers, an Ivy Leaguer with Constitutional as his brand of law at the helm? No nukes or knives or sharp sticks may be involved, but this strikes a pose awfully similar for those familiar with the phrase “mutually-assured destruction.”
The Bordello of Federal Statecraft is long overdue for systematic reform, and if that puts some very comfortable career employees and contracting firms at risk of having to move on and replace such taxpayer-guaranteed stability with private sector endeavors, welcome to the real world, Babylon. They’re not yet, but if I’ve my way, my fellow working class (as well as middle class) citizens will become quite wise and equally outraged over this Bureau-Cartel in the DMV, consisting of both parties. You use our working class and middle class struggles as a punchline to rake in more cash for you and the snotty-nosed turds who intern and look down their nose at us at times and at your portly waistline at others.
Shock of all shocks, the country’s fed up and the end result is something we get blamed for but that you fashioned yourself: the POTUS being Donald J. Trump, now an agent of raw chaos. And while he’s whipping your precious state of mind and state of well-being heretofore, i.e., Beltway Syndrome, into a new brand of latent dementia, anxiety cocktails made for your entire office, the panic is palpable. The roar of mocking laughter of tens of millions of Americans is, yes, the result of the arrogance of a government so out of touch if it had anatomy there’d be no hands, no senses and a destroyed septum from all the cocaine-addled revelry. Too much, too hyperbolic? Too far, am I? Tell it to Freeway Rick Ross and Oliver North.
Melodramatic, overly-dramatic, meanie, et al. Pick a label and slap it on me roundabouts wherever, but if you’re comfortable with being told that there’s nothing to worry about so long as the long-bemoaned status quo persists, then get really comfortable with what you think is comforting journalism buffering you from reality.
The alt-right isn’t the only group capable of emitting what amounts to “fake news”; any group is (see: “Liberals, Modern/Neo” and/or Rather, Dan and/or Williams, Brian) capable of such deliberate or accidental occurrences. Do take bemused heart, in the end, though, with being in America, where you can make a national spectacle out of losing a fiancée you never met prior to your team being similarly humiliated (see: “Football, Notre Dame” and Te’o, M.) and you can accidentally find yourself forgetting to not repeat being shot down with forward-deployed U.S. troops in combat theater in spite of you not arriving till an hour after those brave men endured the harrowing.
Land of the Free (see: “Free, Everything Oughta Be”), Home of the Brave (knowing what we know and we’re still brave enough to stay) and the Citadel of the Right(eous) you all revile, bitter enemies with the Left(ists) in denial and last (and probably least), Bastion of Pan-Partisan economic and sociopolitical drums beaten by ModState and other firms full of meanies like me…
…[Expletive Deleted], I went off the rails and ended up [Expletive Deleted] up even the end of this. But, at long last, a bit of nuanced truth, in defense of ModState: as a non-socialist political thinker and future economist bitterly opposed to furtherance of the bloated nanny state, I am, among other meanies guilty of spawning Type III Diabetes. This devastating scourge serves to remind us all of two truths which could’ve been (but weren’t) written by Al Gore and (had they been) would’ve been reported by Sean Hannity to very polite applause: 1) the sooner we eat the rich and everything we know that meanies like Bill Gates didn’t build (Barack Obama said so, so it must be so, so…) the sooner the redistribution of wealth to its rightful recipients in the non-working Working Class can find a way to blow it all and be poor again (I’m talking about me and my “I made less than $10,000 last year” self, too) and 2) it’s cool to know nothing.
This Editorial has been terrible, but it’s cool because my fellow senior editor and major ModState stakeholder Nate Wellein insisted I write it and go on about things fiscal. He said that I’d just sizzle my way to filling in the gaps in our coverage of economics while he absconds for the remainder of this [Expletive Deleted] week to the snooty Hellhole known as San Diego.
But what really happened here tonight? Aside from the aftermath of the 24th episode of the podcast? Aside from me being a fizzler and not a sizzler thanks to his [Expletive Deleted] notion that I can make sense with all matters of cents?
Who the [Expletive Deleted] knows.
